/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.782028]

You now realize that this board is also for discussion of comic books.


Pic related, it's literature

[Anonymous No.782030]

0/10.

[Anonymous No.782035]

>>782030
I'm not trolling. If you read Watchmen and come to the conclusion that it is not literature then you are a pseudo-intellectual idiot.

[Anonymous No.782048]

i'm not trolling. if you read superhero comics and come to the conclusion that they are literature, then you are a basement-dwelling neckbeard.

what, did they kick you out of /co/?

[Anonymous No.782051]

>>782048
Why do you think that superhero comics cannot be literature? Watchmen is complicated, deep, and original. It is better than 99.9% of all novels ever published.

[Anonymous No.782054]

>>782051
You said it yourself
>If you read Watchmen and come to the conclusion that it is not literature then you are a pseudo-intellectual idiot.

[Anonymous No.782056]

>>782048
Wrong. It's true that comic book writers doen't belong here but Alan Moore is the exception that proves the rule. Especially From Hell. /lit/ is always going on about Gaiman who is a pale image of Moore's vast greatness. Alan Moore is more about literature than half of the books discussed on this board.

[Anonymous No.782057]

>>782054
You aren't making any sense.

[Anonymous No.782059]

>>782056
He's sort of a special case, though. They're aren't any other comic book writers who come close to matching him.

[Anonymous No.782063]

>>782035
Watchmen isn't even remarkable as the medium of comics goes. It's only notable in that it took a genre made for low I.Q. children and managed to use it to construct it a passable story for adults, and low I.Q. teenagers have been hailing it as some sort of second coming of Shakespeare ever since.

[Anonymous No.782064]

>>782048
truth. Moore is not an exception. It's still a comic book, just a slightly more complicated comic book

[Anonymous No.782068]

>>782063
This is false. Watchmen is a very deep book, not just a passable story for adults. For example, 3 of the main characters are essentially existentialists who have dealt with the reality of the universe in way that suited their characters. They're probably the most interesting characters in the book, but they're hardly the only think in the book worth thinking about.

[Anonymous No.782070]

>>782068
>For example, 3 of the main characters are essentially existentialists who have dealt with the reality of the universe in way that suited their characters.
That's not deep. That's just what writing's like when it's not for kids.

[Anonymous No.782076]

>>782070
What do you consider to be deep? I don't think most people would say that all writing for adults contains those sort of philosophical themes since the vast majority of adults who read wouldn't understand them or care about them (even the majority of writers falls into that group). Of course you might say that 99% of all books are not deep, which true.

What makes it deep is the way that their views and their personalities are explored. If you think it's just passable then I'm not certain that your tastes are worth caring about.

[Anonymous No.782086]

>>782076
Movies can be deep too, that doesn't make them literature.

It's a comic book, the text doesn't carry itself without the pictures.

[Anonymous No.782093]

>>782076
Nobody with a pulse has any difficulty understanding existentialism, which even as philosophy goes is simple stuff, and colloquially is usually just a decorated way of saying angst. The characters are well written, I'll grant you, but well written characters are common to much good literature; it's compared to superhero dreck that they seem so sensational. However you're lack of literary breadth shouldn't be imposed on this board when there's a board entirely for the medium you want to talk about.